masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Proposal Editing Protocol
Voting Support # As proposer - Phalanx (talk| ) 21:49, April 18, 2013 (UTC) Neutral Against #See below. TheUnknown285 (talk) 22:42, April 18, 2013 (UTC) #See below. Cattlesquat (talk) 22:47, April 18, 2013 (UTC) #See below.--Legionwrex (talk) 23:08, April 18, 2013 (UTC) Discussion I agree with you that this could be a problem, that there may instances in which someone casts a vote on a project or policy proposal only for the proposal to change to the extent that it would change their vote. However, I think this proposal may make things really, really complicated with the re-adding of signatures and the time extensions and lead to a lot of confusion. Let me propose an alternative. In Congress (and no doubt other legislatures), the amending stage(s) for a bill are completely separate from the final vote(s) on passage. You don't start voting on final passage and then also amend the bill while you're voting. When the bill is in committee, they decide what form the bill will take, voting on amendments along the way. After that, they vote on the bill "as amended." Similarly, when a bill reaches the floor, they deal with amendments first and then have a final vote on the bill "as amended." In a similar vein, I propose that each proposal have a time period (we'll say seven days) for discussion and amendment before it is put to a vote before the community. Once it is put to a vote, the proposal cannot be modified short of submitting a new proposal. TheUnknown285 (talk) 22:41, April 18, 2013 (UTC) :My personal working theory has always been that once I've voted on a proposal I'm going to naturally be getting the followup emails "this page you're following have changed" and I'm going to in any event be following the issue. And if stuff changes in a bad way I can change my vote. I agree it's a little loose and informal, but since this is a wiki that's kind of the whole point. Personally don't need the wiki to become Congress :-) Cattlesquat (talk) 22:47, April 18, 2013 (UTC) Generally if the changes are drastic enough, they are forced to close the policy and create a new one. If they are slightly tweaking or clarifying the policy, I see no need for this and the only real purpose it would have would be to serve as a pain in the side for the proposer, who would have to tell everyone who voted that some mild changes happened.--Legionwrex (talk) 23:07, April 18, 2013 (UTC) :The aim was to streamline that sort of process. If somebody makes a proposal and a large change results due to the discussion then it can end up taking the better part of a month to get it through. The initial vote, followed by a weeks cooldown, followed by a new vote ect. + whatever additional confusion ensues. By keeping it to a single forum and allowing big problems to be caught out and fixed with only a short increase in the voting time or even none at all it would hopefully shorten the voting time. I should probably clarify that the notification of voters thing should not apply for minor edits, like fixing typos. I also wanted to address the sort of confusion that resulted from situations like with the recent language policy revision. That lead to a lot of pain for the proposer. Phalanx (talk| ) 23:33, April 18, 2013 (UTC) The voting period has concluded. The policy proposal has been rejected 1-0-3. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:40, April 26, 2013 (UTC)